Striking Vs. Grappling

[cross]

I started this topic to discuss the merits of striking and grappling in a self defence situation and how the 2 compare in effectivness.

 

In my opinion striking is ususally a better weapon to defend yourself with because you can control how hard you hit a person and even if you hit them softly it still can stun or just annoy them.

 

But if you apply a lock to someone e.g. an armbar, you have to continue holding the technique and unless you almost completely break the limb then it will have little effect.

 

Some people might say that from a legal point of view striking is concidered more violent than choking someone out of applying a lock to them. This is where controling the strike comes into it again, a black eye and some bruises are alot less violent than snapping a limb.

 

Overall the main aim in self defence should be to get away form your attacker. Its alot harder to get away from someone if you are commited to holding/locking them.

 

Please tell me your thoughts about this topic.

 

thanks,

 

cross

[AndrewGreen]

Why is it a one or the other?

 

How about mounting him then punching till he turns over then choking him? Is that striking or grappling?

 

How about Clinching and striking from there? Is that striking or grappling?

 

Both are important, it's not a matter of one or the other.

 

Oh and see also the Hundreds of threads on this topic on every Martial arts forum on the net

[cross]

Im not saying you should use just striking or just grappling. Rather im comparing the use of striking and locks in a self defence situation. For me strikes are more practical.

[Tal]

I've always thought of grappling as a last resort. If your opponent is really beating you in stand up fighting, then you have to take him down and hope you have better grappling skills. You should also be prepared for a situation where your opponent takes you down. If he takes you down, you have to grapple. But IMO, you should try and stay on your feet for as long as possible.

 

In an unarmed one-on-one fight, grappling has a lot of merits if you have the skill. Unfortunately, unarmed one-on-one fights don't always happen. If your opponent has a knife or any small sharp weapon, you are at a big disadvantage if you are grappling because he can slash and stab you almost at will. Yes, you may armbar him, but you'll have blood vessels slashed all over the place. If you stay on your feet, you have a better chance of avoiding knife attacks. You'll still probably get cut, but not as much as if you are right next to him in a grappling situation.

 

The other problem is if there are other people around. They may be your opponent's friends, or they may just be random people. Some people will just join a fight if they feel like it. If you're on the ground choking your opponent, watch out because his friend(s) will come and kick you while you're on the ground. Its a lot easier to fight multiple opponents if you're stood up.

 

Basically it depends on the exact situation. But I'd always be wary of taking someone down in case they pull a knife.

[TJS]

I completly disagree with this..

In my opinion striking is ususally a better weapon to defend yourself with because you can control how hard you hit a person and even if you hit them softly it still can stun or just annoy them.

 

Grappling gives you alot more tools if you dont want to hurt someone, You can take them down and achieve a dominat postition or there are plenty of restraints/pins/locks etc like you see in judo,aikido or policework.

 

You dont have to break peoples arms in most cases, the avg person who is just upset will calm down from pain complience most likley. You also dont have to choke someone out for it ot be effective...If you have someone in a choke and let go right before they go out it's going to slow them down and stun them.

 

I dont think I would hit someone soft to "Stun" them. If it is to the point where I feel in enough danger that i have to hit someone then im going to hit them hard and not stop until they are down.

 

Now as Far as self defense situations go I belive Striking is generally a better option but not for that reason. However as Andrew green pointed out there isint a clear cut line between the two.

[Treebranch]

This topic again? Grappling can be used to break whatever limb you are using to control your opponent. Also the control taught in Grappling Arts gives you much more opportunity to strike them while they are most vulnerable. For example, when you've just thrown them and you are still standing above them. STOMP TO THE HEAD!

[Sasori_Te]

As someone pointed out in another thread, you need to be effective at all ranges, ESPECIALLY in a self defense situation. You never know what might happen when it comes down to it. I don't really think either is better than the other as they both have their place and they compliment each other. It seems to me that to be truly effective at either you have to know the other. Note I did not say that you had to be excellent at both, or even necessarily that you have to use both.

[White Warlock]

Grappling provides far more 'sensitivity' to the actions of your opponent, and therefore allows you to better manage the degree of damage you wish to apply to your opponent. It also allows you to be able to better 'predict' the actions of your opponent when your bodies are in full merge, as opposed to a stand-up situation, where air serves as a buffer to sensitivity and you end up relying far more on your eyes.

 

Striking is a crapshoot. You hit right, you hit with the right part of the body, you hit in the right place, you hit with sufficient force, you hit while the opponent isn't wheeling back and away, you actually hit. Granted, you roll enough dice and you're bound to roll doubles sooner or later... but it's still a crapshoot. Only in 'competitions' does it turn into a game of chess.

 

Grappling is far more a game of chess from the onset. Far more strategy is applicable in grappling, than in striking. The benefits of knowing how to strike, where to strike and when to strike come into play because you have obtained skills that many others simply do not have, or have not applied sufficient studies into... but the 'stand-up' strategies taught for striking competitions actually can go 'against' you in a real life confrontation.

 

Real life confrontations interfere with the purity of strategy, be they stand-up or groundwork. However, the more physical contact you have with your opposition, the more sensitivity you have, and therefore the more likely you will be able to predict your opponent's actions.

 

Here's a toss... most people assume grappling is all groundwork, and this has been emphasized by BJJ and wrestling. But, it is not. Grappling is actually applied as standup techniques as well. When two opponents are clinched, working to obtain an advantage, maintaining a lot of physical contact, they are grappling. Wing chun applies a degree of grappling, via the forearms and arm techniques utilized. Many other systems enter into some degree of grappling, whether it be to hold an opponent's body part while striking, or simply to 'push' an opponent away.

 

The issue of 'going to the ground' is where many people 'can' get into trouble if they are dealing with multiple opponents, or there is a possibility of such a threat. The advantage of remaining on your feet when dealing with multiple opponents is that you can cause your opponents to trip all over each other. It is far harder to do this if you are on the ground, for the obvious reason that all your opponents aren't on the ground right along with you.

[Drunken Monkey]

y'know, i never thought of trapping, pinning, and shutting off lines to be grappling.

 

guess that's cos i'm too used to just knowing it as 'trapping'.

 

hmm, that's probably why i'm convinved you can apply wing chun principles on the ground because it is more of less the same kinda thing that you are dealing with: feel pressure coming from somewhere, ease pressure...

[Venezolano]

It really depends on the situation...

 

If somebody comes to attack me in the street, i don't care if i broke his arm or whatever, it's a self-defense situation, after that i could just go away.

 

If you broke his arm for example he probably will not be able to keep fighting you, but if you are striking with him, you would have to try to KO him so you could go away.

 

I think grappling in some cases is better than striking because like some people already told here, you could just adopt a dominant position and there control your opponent until an authority person arrives (a policeman, etc), you don't have to hurt the person if you don't want to.

 

But you could also like Andrew said, mount him and hit him, you have to choose, in striking you don't have that choice.

 

To stop your opponent you have to strike him and try to hurt him so you can neutralize him.

 

Now of course, if there is more than one person of course that i'll try to strike as most as i can and try to grapple on my feet.